Congressman Poe introduces legislation to curb abusive ADA lawsuits

[mark handler]

Congressman Poe introduces legislation to curb abusive ADA lawsuits

http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/kingwood/opinion/poe-introduces-legislation-to-curb-abusive-ada-lawsuits/article_76f6cf64-0858-5f97-97c2-ddbaf81ec2ab.html

By Community Reports

Congressman Ted Poe (TX-02) along with Congressmen David Jolly and Doug Collins recently introduced H.R. 3765, The ADA Education and Reform Act of 2015.

This legislation will curb frivolous lawsuits filed by cash-hungry attorneys and plaintiffs that abuse the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act).

“The ADA is a vital law that is meant to make American businesses more accessible to the disabled. But the integrity of this important law is being threatened. The vast majority of small businesses in America strive to serve their customers to the best of their ability – relying on the ADA as another tool to help ensure that costumers with disabilities can enjoy the services that they provide,” said Poe. “Most of these business owners believe that they are in compliance with the ADA and have even passed local and state inspections.

“However, despite their best attempts, certain attorneys and their pool of serial plaintiffs troll for minor, easily correctable ADA infractions so they can file a lawsuit and make some cash. There is a now whole industry made up of people who prey on small business owners and file unnecessary abusive lawsuits that abuse both the ADA and the business owners.

“This bill will change that by requiring that the business owners have time to fix what is allegedly broken. If they fail to correct the infractions the plaintiff retains all of their rights to pursue legal action. This legislation restores the purpose of the ADA: to provide access and accommodation to disabled Americans, not to fatten the wallets of attorneys”

Supporting Groups

American Hotel and Lodging Association, Asian American Hotel and Lodging Association, American Resort Development Association , Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) International, International Council of Shopping Centers, International Franchise Association, National Apartment Association, National Association of Theater Owners , National Council of Chain Restaurants , National Federation of Independent Businesses, National Multifamily Housing Council, National Restaurant Association , Retail Industry Leaders Association.

 

[mark handler]

Bill would curb ADA lawsuits against small businesses

Andy Jones | Sunday, November 1, 2015

http://www.rootedinrights.org/bill-introduced-to-curb-ada-lawsuits-against-small-businesses/

A new bill, introduced in Congress on October 20, seeks to amend the Americans with Disabilities Act to provide new notice requirements and a cure period for businesses failing to comply with accessibility standards.

The measure, titled the ADA Education and Reform Act of 2015, https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr3765/text

would bar disability rights attorneys from bringing accessibility violations to business owners’ attention via demand letters, unless the demand letters include a variety of specific details.

Upon being placed on notice of the violations, the business owner would be given 60 days to respond with a written description, outlining how the barrier would be removed. After that, the business owner would have an additional 120-day period to either remove the barrier or make “substantial progress” in doing so, before plaintiffs could bring civil litigation to enforce their rights.

“There is a now whole industry made up of people who prey on small business owners and file unnecessary abusive lawsuits that abuse both the ADA and the business owners…,” Representative Ted Poe (R-TX), who is sponsoring the bill with Representatives David Jolly (R-FL) and Doug Collins (R-GA), in a news release.”This legislation restores the purpose of the ADA: to provide access and accommodation to disabled Americans, not to fatten the wallets of attorneys.”

The bill would also instruct the Judicial Conference of the United States, a national policy-making body for federal courts, to work with business owners and disability rights advocates to create a model alternative dispute resolution system for settling accessibility disputes. ADR refers to arbitration and mediation programs designed to avoid the costs of civil litigation.

The Department of Justice would also be instructed to develop new education programs for informing business owners of their ADA responsibilities

 

[mark handler]

114th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3765

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 20, 2015

Mr. Poe of Texas (for himself, Mr. Collins of Georgia, and Mr. Jolly) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 to promote compliance through education, to clarify the requirements for demand letters, to provide for a notice and cure period before the commencement of a private civil action, and for other purposes.

1.Short title

This Act may be cited as the ADA Education and Reform Act of 2015.

2.Compliance through education

Based on existing funding, the Disability Rights Section of the Department of Justice shall, in consultation with property owners and representatives of the disability rights community, develop a program to educate State and local governments and property owners on effective and efficient strategies for promoting access to public accommodations for persons with a disability (as defined in section 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12102)). Such program may include training for professionals such as Certified Access Specialists to provide a guidance of remediation for potential violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

3.Unfair and deceptive acts and practices relating to ADA compliance demand letters

It shall be unlawful for any person to send or otherwise transmit a demand letter or other form of pre-suit notification alleging a violation of section 302 or 303 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (29 U.S.C. 12182; 12183) if such letter or communication does not specify in detail the circumstances under which an individual was actually denied access to a public accommodation, including the address of property, the specific sections of the Americans with Disabilities Act alleged to have been violated, whether a request for assistance in removing an architectural barrier to access was made, and whether the barrier to access was a permanent or temporary barrier. Any person who violates this section shall be fined under title 18, United States Code.

4.Notice and cure period

Paragraph (1) of section 308(a) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12188(a)(1)) is amended to read as follows:

(1)Availability of remedies and procedures

(A)In general

Subject to subparagraph (B), the remedies and procedures set forth in section 204(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000a–3(a)) are the remedies and procedures this title provides to any person who is being subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of this title or who has reasonable grounds for believing that such person is about to be subjected to discrimination in violation of section 303. Nothing in this section shall require a person with a disability to engage in a futile gesture if such person has actual notice that a person or organization covered by this title does not intend to comply with its provisions.

(B)Barriers to access to existing public accommodations

A civil action under section 302 or 303 based on the failure to remove an architectural barrier to access into an existing public accommodation may not be commenced by a person aggrieved by such failure unless—

(i)that person has provided to the owner or operator of the accommodation a written notice specific enough to allow such owner or operator to identify the barrier; and

(ii)

(I)during the period beginning on the date the notice is received and ending 60 days after that date, the owner or operator fails to provide to that person a written description outlining improvements that will be made to remove the barrier; or

(II)if the owner or operator provides the written description under subclause (I), the owner or operator fails to remove the barrier or to make substantial progress in removing the barrier during the period beginning on the date the description is provided and ending 120 days after that date.

.

5.Mediation for ADA actions related to architectural barriers

The Judicial Conference of the United States shall, under rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any other applicable law, in consultation with property owners and representatives of the disability rights community, develop a model program to promote the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, including a stay of discovery during mediation, to resolve claims of architectural barriers to access for public accommodations. To the extent practical, the Federal Judicial Center should provide a public comment period on any such proposal. The goal of the model program shall be to promote access quickly and efficiently without the need for costly litigation. The model program should include an expedited method for determining the relevant facts related to such barriers to access and steps taken before the commencement of litigation to resolve any issues related to access.

6.Effective date

This Act and the amendments made by this Act take effect 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

 

[ADAguy]

"very" interesting, is this an admission of "failure to enforce" or an attempt for the government to minimize impact to staff demands for investigations?

 

[mark handler]

Time for Congress to curb abusive ADA lawsuits

By Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas)

November 06, 2015, 07:00 am

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/259333-time-for-congress-to-curb-abusive-ada-lawsuits

Doughnuts to Go is a small family-owned shop in California managed by Lee Ky. Like any small business, its success depends on the hard work and grit of the folks who run it. Her success was threatened in 2012 when Doughnuts to Go was sued by ADA trolls for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The lawsuit alleged minute violations, including: a mislabeled table, door handles being off by a few centimeters and the trashcan in the bathroom being in the wrong place. Lee was outraged and surprised by this lawsuit. Even more so because she is disabled herself, confined to a wheelchair and runs her store without any barriers to access. Lee was targeted by a serial plaintiff who never set foot in her store and whoalso sued nearly 80 other businesses in the area. Unfortunately, Lee is not alone. The fact is that there is a whole industry made up of people who prey on and strong-arm small businesses in order to make money off of ADA lawsuits. To these trolls, it is about making money, not helping the disabled.

In 1990, the ADA was signed into law, a monumental step to improve access and equality for all citizens in this country. Now, after 25 years of progress and advancement, the integrity of this landmark legislation is being threatened by a handful of attorneys and plaintiffs.

Small businesses are the life-blood of our communities. The vast majority of them strive to serve their customers to the best of their ability – relying on the ADA as another tool to help ensure that customers with disabilities can enjoy the services that they provide. However, despite their best attempts, certain attorneys and their pool of serial plaintiffs look for minor, easily correctable ADA infractions so they can file a lawsuit and make some cash.

Faced with the threat of a lawsuit for minor infractions, small businesses often find themselves in a dilemma. They have few choices: settle, pay fees that match those of lengthy and expensive litigation, or spend time and money to go through the legal process. This becomes a lose-lose situation very quickly.

At face value, these “drive-by” lawsuits are an easy way for both plaintiff and attorney to make a quick buck. In many cases, a single plaintiff signs onto multiple cases, alleging violations at businesses and properties where that plaintiff may have never set foot. In California, for example, one serial plaintiff has filed nearly 1,000 lawsuits. Some of these lawsuits are filed by plaintiffs that have never been in the business, or even live in the state. The abuse is evident.

Unfortunately, these lawsuits are on the rise nationwide. What’s more is that local and state courts across the country are finding themselves inundated with these “drive-by” lawsuits; some have created special rules just to deal with the sheer volume of drive-by cases being heard. Because of this, local legislatures are taking notice and have begun to take action. The ADA, however, is a federal law, and as such, Congress must remedy the harmful practice of “drive-by” lawsuits targeting small businesses.

This is why I am introducing the ADA Education and Reform Act of 2015, H.R. 3765; legislation that will provide business owners with an opportunity to remedy alleged ADA infractions before being saddled within legal fees. Business owners will have a 120-day window within which to make any necessary public accommodation corrections and updates to their businesses. If the business owner fails to correct the infractions, the plaintiff retains all of their rights to pursue legal action under the ADA. This legislation restores the purpose of the ADA: to provide access and accommodation to disabled Americans, not to fatten the wallets of ADA trolls.

This bill also includes a measure aimed at bringing state and local governments, business owners, and disability advocacy groups together to improve access for the disabled community through improved education and compliance. H.R.3765 will serve as a vital partner to the ADA and will provide property owners and members of the disability community the opportunity to work together to increase the effectiveness of the ADA.

The goal of this legislation is to make all businesses comply with the ADA----not to be a cash cow for litigants that never have set foot in Doughnuts to Go. This bill represents a common sense solution to a very real problem facing countless businesses across this country. It is time to restore the ADA’s integrity and ensure its survival for another quarter century and beyond.

Poe has represented Texas’ 2nd Congressional District since 2005. He sits on the Judiciary and the Foreign Affairs committees.